LETTER: Endorsement of Obama took the wrong side

This letter is to point out a few things about The Standard-Times endorsement of Barack Obama, an endorsement that was never really in question with longtime readers of this extreme-left newspaper.

First, the editorial gives credit to Sen. John McCain for "crossing the aisle," then goes on to imply Sen. McCain is a lackey for President George W. Bush. This newspaper's disingenuous skirting of the facts is alarming. Sen. McCain is more than merely a "war hero." He is a man who has throughout his career looked out for the taxpayer and their money.

There is a primary difference between him and his opponent on this. Sen. McCain continually votes against attempts to legislate pork spending, while his opponent has asked for over $1 billion in one term in the Senate.

Your editorial then goes on to speak of the senator from Illinois as having thoughtful policy. "Thoughtful" must include chasing jobs from the United States. The senator from Illinois' tax plan, which could be implemented in what is a critical time in this nation, as well as the world's economic history, is specious at best, dangerous at worst. Many economists believe his increased corporate taxation will lead to job losses and even further slowing of capital asset purchases, meaning "trickle down" company downsizing and closures.

The editorial then speaks to foreign policy as well as Iraq. Sen. Obama has every right to crow about voting against the war. He really was, in most minds, ahead of the curve on that issue. Yet Sen. Obama also voted against the surge, and while he admits this policy has led to a more safe, secure Iraq, he refuses to admit he was wrong on his vote.

Sen. Obama also continues to state he would sit with a nation that has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and vows to "erase it from the map" without condition. Does the senator from Illinois understand the ramifications of giving Iran not only a platform but also credibility in the world's eye by "negotiating" with a terrorist?

Your editorial spoke in a negative way about President Ronald Reagan. Does anyone in the world, with the advantage of hindsight, believe that the fall of the Soviet Union would have occurred if instead of statements such as "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" we would have sat down without condition?